The now trending and viral quote from Robert Pattinson’s Antinous in Christopher Nolan’s new epic re-telling of “The Odyssey” seems eerily applicable to the Federal Court’s decision in Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v Telstra Limited (No 2) [2026] FCA 983 (Universal Studios 2026 (No 2)), restricting access to illegal streams of the aforementioned film (amongst other Hollywood new releases) within Australia.
Gone are the days of LimeWire (for those of that vintage), projectfreetv and 123movies; those seeking to ‘pirate’ the latest film adaptation of the ancient Greek poem may now find themselves on a journey akin to that of Odysseus, scouring the web for a home (page) that can’t be found and seems perpetually out of reach – at least, for the next five years.
The proceedings, brought under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) by Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., Home Box Office Inc. and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (together, the applicants) against 47 respondent internet service providers (ISPs), sought urgent relief in the form of site blocking of “target online locations” (TOLs) and “target addresses” on which the applicants considered the operators of those sites were likely to make available for streaming, without a licence, the films The Odyssey and “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” (Spider-Man), and the upcoming television series “Lanterns” (if it’s not Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern, I don’t want it).
The applicants sought three forms of orders that varied from those previously made in such cases, which Justice Burley helpfully summarised within his judgment: Universal Studios 2026 (No 2) [10].
First, they sought – friendly neighbourhood – orders requiring the ISPs to implement site blocking measures in respect of the target addresses that threatened to make Spider-Man available online by 28 or 29 July 2026, ahead of the film’s release date in Australian cinemas on 30 July 2026: [11]. Interestingly, whilst the orders were framed as seeking interlocutory relief, his Honour noted they would have final effect.
Secondly, the applicants sought final blocking orders for five years, notably of longer duration than in previous analogous cases. Orders in similar cases have typically been made for a duration of three years, with copyright owners having leave to approach the Court for extensions of those orders in circumstances where there is evidence of continued facilitation of copyright infringement by TOLs: [12]. The applicants submitted that it was burdensome to seek extensions from three years and that often, those extensions must be sought because the TOLs continue to facilitate the infringement elsewhere in the world and, but for the site blocking, would do so in Australia.
Justice Burley accepted that submission, noting that in an analogous decision made by his Honour earlier this year, the Court was continuing to grant justified extensions some nine years after the initial site blocking orders were made in 2017: [13].
Thirdly, the applicants sought orders to enable further urgent applications arising from the release of the films, and the imminent release of Lanterns on streaming services, to be more readily brought in the proceedings.
The “New Release” regime (I prefer the term “Spidey-Senses Regime”) proposed that during the “release window”, being a period of several months from 22 July 2026 until 1 November 2026, the applicants could seek leave to file further applications seeking urgent orders in a form substantially the same as the orders made in this application, on the basis that further identified TOLs were making available or facilitating access to one or other of the releases: [24]. The broad intention underlying those orders was, as his Honour put it, to “ensure that the applicants have any opportunity to obtain site blocking orders during a critical time in the life of a new release”: [25].
Having regard to all of the relevant factors under s 115A(5) of the Act and the provision’s underlying policy purposes, his Honour found it appropriate to grant the orders sought, including both the extension of the duration of the orders to five years and the granting of the styled interlocutory orders as final orders: [20] and [23].
Notably, in granting the orders in relation to the Spidey-Senses Regime, his Honour noted that “s 115A warrants a broad and flexible application to ensure that serial copyright infringers who facilitate the availability of infringing works to the public are the subject of swift and appropriate orders”: [30].
In other words, the key takeaway for individual consumers: pay up for your subscription services*…
*The author notes that he has currently maxed out his “away from home” requests on certain subscription services and is open to discount codes and/or password sharing arrangements.
